I initially posted in the thread on the airplane tragedy, but deciding to heed my own advice and keep threads on topic and especially since that one was focused on Prayers, I thought I'd start a new one relating the recent tragedy and the developments in relation to Russia.

One thing is certain - there is a propaganda war going full throttle now on both sides. This is from the Sun, Britain's most circulated paper:

While I am no fanboy of Putin, this is pretty ridiculous. Yes, they support the rebels, the US supported Osama bin Laden too at one stage. Does that mean they are to blame for 9/11? That's really drawing a long bow.

Frankly, Russia's behaviour in relation to Ukraine is pretty much in line with realpolitik as it is practiced today, which is to say, despicable. But the West, who have removed and installed regimes as they saw fit from Iran to Central America, and in the past annexed huge swathes of land from Hawaii to Mexico, hardly has the high moral ground. I don't think Putin is the power-crazed despot, Western media portrays his to be. His thinking, as far as I can make out, is to push back and re-establish Russia as a power to be reckoned with. A Russia that will protect its national interest and throw its weight around if needs be, rather than being pushed around by the West, as it is perceived domestically. Russia has always focused on its local scene - Chechnya, Abhasia, Ukraine, which it sees as its legitimate sphere of influence after the loss of the Warsaw Pact states. I think much of what we see is a product of the West trying to contain Russia (just like China) and maintain hegemony over world affairs.

Sure for my money, I'd rather the US and NATO were in charge, given more transparency, rule of law and less concentration of power in the West, but that's a separate matter.

What are your perspectives and thoughts? I am seriously worried about where this is all heading...

Dan74 wrote:Sure for my money, I'd rather the US and NATO were in charge, given more transparency, rule of law and less concentration of power in the West, but that's a separate matter.

What are your perspectives and thoughts? I am seriously worried about where this is all heading...

I am very worried about all this too. As I mentioned on the other thread, a missile system capable of blowing an airliner out of the sky at cruising altitude is not simple to operate. If it was a Buk system, which looks almost certain, it could be the Ukrainian Army, the Russian Army or separatists who were given a system by the Russians and trained on its use. The Ukrainian Army did not leave behind any Buks in previous retreats and without training the separatists would not be able to operate them. Hence we can really lay the responsibility for this either with the Russian Army (whether they fired the weapon themselves or trained someone to) or the Ukrainian Army.

What I find deeply disturbing is that the American government spent considerable sums of money through USAID to destabilize the democratically elected government of Ukraine. They are now pressuring the EU to increase sanctions against Russia. While these sanctions have little impact on US businesses, they will have tremendous impact on the EU's considerable bilateral trade with Russia, particularly Germany. The Americans look to me to be pursuing commercial advantage. They clearly don't care about democracy. They have supported despots in the Middle East for over 60 years. They attacked Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts, killed over a hundred thousand people and left it hopelessly balkanized. This action of theirs is clearly mercenary as is their rhetoric in its service. The Russians have an obvious interest in this territory. Propaganda on all sides.

It's hard to see this ending well for the US though... look at the recent founding of the BRICS bank to counterbalance the World Bank and IMF, the move for Russia and China to settle accounts in renmibi, the building of an eastern pipeline connecting Russia and China, etc. If the US keeps this up, the USD will lose reserve currency status within our lifetime and that will be absolutely catastrophic for the American domestic economy. Russia and China have been very effective in building relationships with African and Latin American countries. All of this will put the world on an inexorable path to kinetic warfare.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

Dan74 wrote:I initially posted in the thread on the airplane tragedy, but deciding to heed my own advice and keep threads on topic and especially since that one was focused on Prayers, I thought I'd start a new one relating the recent tragedy and the developments in relation to Russia.

One thing is certain - there is a propaganda war going full throttle now on both sides. This is from the Sun, Britain's most circulated paper:

While I am no fanboy of Putin, this is pretty ridiculous. Yes, they support the rebels, the US supported Osama bin Laden too at one stage. Does that mean they are to blame for 9/11? That's really drawing a long bow.

Frankly, Russia's behaviour in relation to Ukraine is pretty much in line with realpolitik as it is practiced today, which is to say, despicable. But the West, who have removed and installed regimes as they saw fit from Iran to Central America, and in the past annexed huge swathes of land from Hawaii to Mexico, hardly has the high moral ground. I don't think Putin is the power-crazed despot, Western media portrays his to be. His thinking, as far as I can make out, is to push back and re-establish Russia as a power to be reckoned with. A Russia that will protect its national interest and throw its weight around if needs be, rather than being pushed around by the West, as it is perceived domestically. Russia has always focused on its local scene - Chechnya, Abhasia, Ukraine, which it sees as its legitimate sphere of influence after the loss of the Warsaw Pact states. I think much of what we see is a product of the West trying to contain Russia (just like China) and maintain hegemony over world affairs.

Sure for my money, I'd rather the US and NATO were in charge, given more transparency, rule of law and less concentration of power in the West, but that's a separate matter.

What are your perspectives and thoughts? I am seriously worried about where this is all heading...

Yes, wise words Dan. 'The first casualty of war is truth'. Although it maybe the case that that Russia is indirectly responsible, countries like America (and Australia), from my point of view, all too readily want this to be the case, giving them leverage against Russia. Their hasty rhetoric matches this already, without giving it more timely and wise consideration. In other words, finger pointing too soon just inflames the situation. I Notice the German response so far by comparison is much less inflammatory, and more circumspect and moderate in tone.

For America to take the high moral ground (as they often do) is just hypocritical given their track record, and is a transparent attempt to leverage their own waning world influence.

Karma Dorje wrote: I am very worried about all this too. As I mentioned on the other thread, a missile system capable of blowing an airliner out of the sky at cruising altitude is not simple to operate. If it was a Buk system, which looks almost certain, it could be the Ukrainian Army, the Russian Army or separatists who were given a system by the Russians and trained on its use. The Ukrainian Army did not leave behind any Buks in previous retreats and without training the separatists would not be able to operate them. Hence we can really lay the responsibility for this either with the Russian Army (whether they fired the weapon themselves or trained someone to) or the Ukrainian Army.

What I find deeply disturbing is that the American government spent considerable sums of money through USAID to destabilize the democratically elected government of Ukraine. They are now pressuring the EU to increase sanctions against Russia. While these sanctions have little impact on US businesses, they will have tremendous impact on the EU's considerable bilateral trade with Russia, particularly Germany. The Americans look to me to be pursuing commercial advantage. They clearly don't care about democracy. They have supported despots in the Middle East for over 60 years. They attacked Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts, killed over a hundred thousand people and left it hopelessly balkanized. This action of theirs is clearly mercenary as is their rhetoric in its service. The Russians have an obvious interest in this territory. Propaganda on all sides.

It's hard to see this ending well for the US though... look at the recent founding of the BRICS bank to counterbalance the World Bank and IMF, the move for Russia and China to settle accounts in renmibi, the building of an eastern pipeline connecting Russia and China, etc. If the US keeps this up, the USD will lose reserve currency status within our lifetime and that will be absolutely catastrophic for the American domestic economy. Russia and China have been very effective in building relationships with African and Latin American countries. All of this will put the world on an inexorable path to kinetic warfare.

Dan & Karma. I agree that this is very worrying. The geopolitical situation seems to be becoming more and more volatile. Eventually, these things come to a head. I hope it is resolved as peacefully as possible.

Here's an interesting contrast from the Dutch in response to this tragedy. A more constructive and considered approach. The Australians and Americans would do well to examine this, if they could get their geopolitical aspirations off the agenda:

(Reuters) - The Dutch nation mourned 189 citizens lost in the Ukrainian air disaster in sorrow rather than anger on Friday, and Prime Minister Mark Rutte held back from pointing the figure of blame.In a country which values restraint and avoids public displays of strong emotion, politicians and media stuck largely to reflecting sombrely on those who died when the Malaysian jet came down on Thursday, including some noted citizens.

"The whole of the Netherlands is in deep mourning," said Rutte. "This is one of the worst air disasters in Dutch history."

More than half the 298 victims aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 heading from Amsterdam for Kuala Lumpur were Dutch, a loss keenly felt in a country of just 15 million people.

While Dutch and world leaders demanded an international investigation into the crash over the conflict zone of eastern Ukraine, the nation steered clear of rapidly accusing any of the sides of shooting the jet down.

Leaders of the pro-Russian rebels' self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic have denied involvement and said a Ukrainian air force jet brought down the intercontinental flight.

Rutte also played down any expectations that the Netherlands would immediately be pushing for tougher European Union economic sanctions against Russia or the Ukrainian separatists.

"If I bang my fist against the table now ... then I reduce the chances of the Netherlands and all those who support us getting the facts on the table," he told a news conference in The Hague.

The Dutch have lost more lives in this disaster than any other country, but have deliberately and responsibly set this aside, not looking to make political and tactical mileage from the events, either domestically or internationally.

I'm sad to say: For the Dutch, taking such a position is itself a tactical move, domestically and internationally. Domestically because such sentiments play well politically; internationally because they'd like to remain a viable investment site for capital pilfered from Russia by its oligarchs on one side, and are reliant on natural resources from Russia as well.

Dan74 wrote: But the West, who have removed and installed regimes as they saw fit from Iran to Central America, and in the past annexed huge swathes of land from Hawaii to Mexico, hardly has the high moral ground.

The Monroe Doctrine, formulated during an era when the US was under constant thread from European Colonial powers. That was amended by Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policies.

I don't think Putin is the power-crazed despot, Western media portrays his to be. His thinking, as far as I can make out, is to push back and re-establish Russia as a power to be reckoned with. A Russia that will protect its national interest and throw its weight around if needs be, rather than being pushed around by the West, as it is perceived domestically. Russia has always focused on its local scene - Chechnya, Abhasia, Ukraine, which it sees as its legitimate sphere of influence after the loss of the Warsaw Pact states. I think much of what we see is a product of the West trying to contain Russia (just like China) and maintain hegemony over world affairs.

As far as I can tell, Russia is interested annexing the whole of the Ukrain, which Russians regard as properly a part of Russia.

This a screw up of massive proportions on the part of the Russians.

I am seriously worried about where this is all heading...

No where. Russia's lost the moral high ground, despite the Ukrainian Nazis and so on.

By George C. WilsonWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, July 4, 1988; Page A01A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished.

"The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.

The disaster occurred at mid-morning over the Strait of Hormuz, when the airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, on what Iran described as a routine 140-mile flight from its coastal city of Bandar Abbas southwest to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, apparently strayed too close to two U.S. Navy warships that were engaged in a battle with Iranian gunboats.

The USS Vincennes, a cruiser equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic battle gear in the Navy's surface arsenal, tracked the oncoming plane electronically, warned it to keep away, and when it did not fired two Standard surface-to-air missiles.

Navy officials said the Vincennes' combat teams believed the airliner to be an Iranian F14 jet fighter. No visual contact was made with the aircraft until it was struck and blew up about six miles from the Vincennes; the plane's wreckage fell in Iranian territorial waters, Navy officials said.

Iranian vessels and helicopters searched for survivors, but there was no indication last night that anyone survived what apparently is the sixth worst aviation disaster. Iranian television broadcast scenes of bodies floating amid scattered debris.

It was the first time any U.S. military unit had shot down a civilian airliner. It occurred almost five years after a Soviet fighter pilot shot down an off-course Korean Air Lines Flight 007, killing 269 people.

Iran accused the United States of a "barbaric massacre" and vowed to "avenge the blood of our martyrs."

President Reagan in a statement said he was "saddened to report" that the Vincennes "in a proper defensive action" had shot down the jetliner. "This is a terrible human tragedy. Our sympathy and condolences go out to the passengers, crew, and their families . . . . We deeply regret any loss of life."

Reagan, who was spending the Fourth of July holiday at Camp David, said the Iranian aircraft "was headed directly for the Vincennes" and had "failed to heed repeated warnings." The cruiser, he said, fired "to protect itself against possible attack."

News of the downing of the plane began with sharply conflicting accounts from Iran and from the Defense Department of what had transpired in the Persian Gulf. Early yesterday, Tehran broadcast accusations that the United States had downed an unarmed airliner.

The Pentagon at first denied the Iranian claims, declaring that information from the fleet indicated that the Vincennes, equipped with the Aegis electronic battle management system, had shot down an attacking Iranian F14 jet fighter. But after sifting through more detailed reports and electronic intelligence, Reagan directed the Pentagon to confirm there had been a tragic case of mistaken identity in the war-torn gulf.

Crowe, in his hastily called news conference at the Pentagon, also backed up the skipper of the Vincennes and faulted the Iranian airline pilot. Crowe said the Airbus had flown four miles west of the usual commercial airline route from Bandar Abbas to Dubai and that the pilot ignored repeated radioed warnings from the Vincennes to change course.

Why and how the Vincennes mistook the bulky, wide-bodied Airbus A300 for a sleek, supersonic F14 fighter plane barely a third the transport's size will be the subject of "a full investigation," Reagan promised. A military team under the command of Rear Adm. William N. Fogarty of the U.S. Central Command will leave this week to begin that investigation, Defense Department officials said.

The shootdown of the Airbus represents the biggest loss of life on the strategic waterway since the U.S. warships began escorting Kuwaiti tankers in and out of the Persian Gulf last July. Pentagon officials then said the increased U.S. naval presence would have from a "low to moderate risk" of provoking confrontations with Iran.

But in the past year, although the United States and Iran are not in a formal state of war, there have been a series of brief but fierce sea battles in the gulf between the two countries' military forces. Vigilance and readiness among U.S. forces intensified after the near-sinking of the patrol frigate USS Stark by an Iraqi fighter-bomber on May 17, 1987, in a missile attack that killed 37 sailors.

Yesterday started out as another sea battle, and ended with what the Vincennes commanders misinterpreted as a "Stark profile" attack on the high-tech cruiser. Crowe in his briefing and other Navy and Defense Department officials offered a detailed version of how the shoot-down occurred.

At 2:10 a.m. EDT, the Pentagon said, three Iranian Boghammar gunboats fired on a helicopter that had flown off the Vincennes on a reconnaissance mission. The helicopter flew back to the cruiser unscathed. The Vincennes and a smaller warship, the frigate USS Elmer Montgomery, a half-hour later closed on the gunboats and put them under fire with 5-inch guns, sinking two and damaging the third.

At 2:47 a.m. EDT, the Iranian Airbus with almost a full load of passengers took off from Bandar Abbas, a big Iranian naval base on the northern coastal elbow of the Strait of Hormuz. The field at the base is used by civilian and military aircraft and recently had become the center for Iran's dwindling force of F14s, a twin-engine, two-place fighter that the United States sold to Iran during the rule of the shah.

Two minutes after the Airbus took off, the far-reaching radars of the Vincennes Aegis cruiser saw the plane was coming its way. The skipper of the ship, operating under liberalized rules of engagement that call for U.S. captains in the Persian Gulf to fire before being fired upon to avoid another Stark disaster, warned the approaching aircraft to change course, according to the Pentagon.

The Vincennes and most airliners are equipped with identification of friend or foe (IFF) electronic boxes that query each other across the sky to establish identities. The Vincennes' IFF questioned the Airbus IFF via telemetry, but received no response. A response would come in radio pulses that would be deciphered and displayed as an identifying number on the ship's combat information center consoles.

Failing to raise the Airbus by IFF, the Pentagon said, the Vincennes broadcast its warnings by voice radio, using the emergency UHF and VHF channels that aircraft crews would hear if they followed standard practice of monitoring those frequencies. Crowe said three warnings were sent over the civilian emergency channel and four over the military one, called "Guard." The Pentagon said the Vincennes could have issued the warning over the air traffic control channel but did not.

"The suspect aircraft was outside the prescribed commercial air corridor," Crowe told reporters. Defense Department officials said later that the Airbus was four miles west of commercial air corridor. "More importantly," Crowe continued, "the aircraft headed directly for Vincennes on a constant bearing at high speed, approximately 450 knots."

Without becoming specific, Crowe said there were "electronic indications on Vincennes" that led the U.S. crew to conclude the approaching airliner was an F14. "Given the threatening flight profile and decreasing range, the aircraft was declared 'hostile' " at 2:51 a.m. EDT. The airliner at that crucial moment was on a course of almost due south, 185 degrees, and descending toward the Vincennes from an altitude of 7,800 feet, according to Crowe. Visibility was no more than five miles, Crowe said.

Three minutes later, at 2:54 a.m. EDT, the Vincennes launched two Standard surface-to-air missiles from its deck. The missiles whooshed toward the twin-jet airliner, which was nine miles away and not visible to the naked eye because of the haze hanging over the gulf. The Standard missiles homed in on the heat of the quarry's engines and at least one of them exploded when it pulled abreast of the Airbus. Such a missile hit usually slices an aircraft apart and turns it into a fireball of burning fuel.

"At least one hit at an approximate range of six miles," Crowe said. "We do have some eyewitness reports that saw the vague shape of the aircraft when the missile hit, and it looked like it disintegrated."

Asked if the Vincennes' skipper had been prudent or impetuous by firing at a plane he could not see, Crowe replied: "The commanding officer conducted himself with circumspection and, considering the information that was available to him, followed his authorities and acted with good judgment at a very trying period and under very trying circumstances . . . . Not only was he following this aircraft and concerned about it," but he also "was engaged on the surface with Iranian units."

Crowe said it was "logical" for the skipper to assume an aircraft that was coming down from the sky at high speed and would not respond to radio warnings was putting the Vincennes "in jeopardy."

At another point in the news conference Crowe broadened his defense of the Vincennes skipper, declaring "the No. 1 obligation of the commanding officer of a ship or units are the protection of his own people. We deeply regret the loss of life here, but that commanding officer had a very heavy obligation to protect his ships, his people. We've made that clear throughout the Persian Gulf mission . . . . "

Crowe, who used a chart of the Strait of Hormuz that displayed the approximate positions of the vessels and the route of the airliner, said he did not have enough data to explain fully why the multiple kinds of detection gear aboard the Vincennes mistook a wide-bodied jetliner for a fighter.

But he noted that the Vincennes' radar was focused on a plane coming at it head-on, reflecting a smaller dot on the console screens than would be the case from a side view. Also, he said, no Air Force Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) or Navy Hawkeye sentry planes were aloft over the Strait of Hormuz to provide additional identification data to the Vincennes at the time of the shootdown.

Navy leaders said Iranian commercial aircraft had flown over U.S. warships in a threatening manner at least eight times before the Stark was hit by two French Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi jet. Ever since the Stark attack, skippers in the gulf have been less tolerant of such apparent threats.

Asked if the skipper of the Vincennes would have held his fire under the interpretation of the rules of engagement followed before the Stark was attacked, Crowe replied: "I don't know. Certainly the rules of engagement would not have been as specific as the authorities granted him." He said another review of the rules of engagement would be part of the general investigation of the shootdown.

Crowe said there were "fundamental differences" between the actions of United States in this incident and the Soviet Union in the downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, which strayed into Soviet airspace on the night of Sept. 1, 1983, during a flight from Alaska to Japan. The Soviet airspace was not a war zone like the Persian Gulf, Crowe said, "and there was not combat in progress" as was the case yesterday. "It was at very high altitude" and no Soviet warnings were issued.

"In the Persian Gulf," Crowe said, there is very little time or maneuver room when ships are put at risk. "We're fighting in a lake."

MOSCOW (AP) — A top pro-Russia rebel commander in eastern Ukraine has given a bizarre version of events surrounding the Malaysian jetliner crash — suggesting many of the victims may have died days before the plane took off.

The pro-rebel website Russkaya Vesna on Friday quoted Igor Girkin as saying he was told by people at the crash site that "a significant number of the bodies weren't fresh," adding that he was told they were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition.

The Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 was shot down Thursday, killing all 298 people aboard. The plane was flying 10,000 meters above an area where Ukrainian forces have been fighting separatist rebels. Each side accuses the other of downing the plane.

U.S. intelligence authorities said a surface-to-air missile brought down the plane, and U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told the U.N. Security Council in New York on Friday that the missile was likely fired from a rebel-held area near the Russian border.

Girkin, also known as Strelkov and allegedly a former Russian military intelligence agent, said he couldn't confirm the information. But it's sure to add to the intense emotions surrounding the crash, with the rebels accused of shooting down the plane.

Girkin said "Ukrainian authorities are capable of any baseness."

He claimed that a large amount of blood serum and medications were found in the wreckage.

Malcolm, thank you for posting the article about the Iranian plane tragedy. A timely reminder than this doesn't only happen on their side.

As for annexing the Ukraine, no I think there's no chance of that. Putin reiterated that on several occasions (I know I still make the mistake of trusting politicians), but from a practical perspective it wouldn't work. I think a full-scale war would not be accepted by the majority of Russian population.

I think the Russian government would like to have their man in Kiiv, or one quite sympathetic, unlike the current lot. And they wouldn't mind a puppet regime connecting Russia with Transnistria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria another pro-Russian regime that broke off from Moldova.

One thing that has to be remembered in this conflict is that it's not black-and-white. There are many people in the Ukraine who would like to join Russia, particularly in those parts. Possibly the majority, I am not sure, but after 2 decades of shocking economic mismanagement, corruption and anti-Russian noises, Russian-speakers in the Ukraine would not be too comfortable, I imagine. Of course

Karma Dorje, I agree with your skeptical appraisal of the intentions of the Western governments, but the majority of the population remains quite sold on these stories, that's the issue. And on the other side, it's even worse. Of course the previous lot in office in the Ukraine was particularly unimpressive, to say the least, though it was democratically elected. Interesting prognosis, I don't know enough to comment, but will look into it.

I think this probably rests on people using the term deviate in different senses. If you look at the flight paths here (http://pt.flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140720/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK), you can see from the previous week that the flight was considerably further north than in previous days bringing it above the conflict zone. I suspect that the Malaysian minister might be using it in a technical sense where there is a range in the coordinates that are normal to adjust for weather conditions and so on, where others are noting that it was north of the average route in the past.

It is tragic, and I hope the tragedy is not abused to ramp up the conflict.